Which method is more suitable to conduct the experimental investigation between CCD vs. BBD of Response surface methodology?
Rightly said by Neda Ravankhah. I would like to add that Both CCD and the BBD design can work, but they have different structures, so if your
experimental region is such that extreme points (for eg the extreme points in CCD model are outside the range for the growth of bacteria) are a problem then there are some advantages to the Box-Behnken. Otherwise, they both work well.
The usual justification for going to the Box-Behnken is to avoid the situation where the corner points in the central composite design are very extreme, i.e. they are at the highest level of several factors. So, because they are very extreme, the researchers may say these points are not very typical. In this case the Box Behnken may look a lot more desirable since there are more points in the middle
of the range and they are not as extreme. The Box-Behnken might feel a little 'safer' since the points are not as extreme as all of the factors.
In nutshell, i would say it would be interesting to look at the variance of the predicted values for both of these designs. (This would be an interesting research question for somebody!) The question would be which of the two designs gives you smaller average variance over the region of experimentation.
Additional to say, BBD does not have axial points but points on central cube lines, for which BBD has less experimental points. That's why BBD is more useful only when you understand your process and are supposed to perform the process in the operating range.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Materials Engineering
- Powders